Full notes on Charles Cross/Lechmere

[Chris Scott]

Children of Charles and Elizabeth Lechmere (list incomplete)

Elizabeth Emily 19 Oct 1873
Mary Jane 23 Jan 1876
Thomas Allen 2 July 1876
James Alfred 2 Jan 1881
Louisa Annie 30 Jul 1882
Charles Allen 24 Feb 1884
Albert Edward 3 Jan 1886
Harriet Emma 29 Mar 1891

[Chris Scott]

Probate after CL's death -

[Chris Scott]

In Memoriam card and grave details

[Chris Scott]

Lechmere was listed in the 1902 Post office Directory

[Chris Scott]

The admission record for 3 of Lechmere's sons to the Essex Street school on 12 June 1888

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Chris,
how odd, Im pretty sure when I looked the other day on the website I won a subscription too (the genealogist.com) it came up for 1901 as Lechmere (I remember my subscription and looked it up just after I asked someone about it on the other thread). Oddly enough I previously have thought i wont be renewing once my prize runs out in October because it seemed difficult to find things transcribed properly (must have been just the Welsh places I was looking for previously at fault!)

I take it your subscription is to something better (sorry not trying to derail thread just asking as it seems like it is and I have got used to my subscription and might consider another in future).

Also not to nit pick Fisherman, but in the cases of all the census bar 1911 and the baptisms, the official would have filled in the book and no one woulf have signed anything - the names would have been given verbally.

I have to say I agree with the notion that using the name Cross was not using a false name. I also agree that it was odd if it was not the name he used for such important events as naming his children. I have come across odder things in my time studying my own genealogy (God bless them). On the balance of probabilities I think it is far to say that
1) Cross was a name associated with this person in his childhood.
2) in using this name he wasnt going to any great effort to hide his identity, ie he could have come up with something not associated with him like Michael Hilton or Richard Moon.
3) His correct address was given, and so was his correct place of work. These two factors would go someway to mitigating the fact that he gave his name as Cross when he seemingly used Lechmere for the purpose of official documentation throughout his life.

Finally if he really was JtR, why didnt he just vanish and send Paul off to get the police? He wouldnt have had to give any details about anything, would he?


Jenni

[Chris Scott]

Finally, you could call this another "Royal Conspiracy" in that Lechmere was a direct descendant of Edmund Lechmere (born 1577) who was himself, via his mother Anne Dingley, descended directly from the Neville family back to King Edward III.

That's all I have on him folks!

[Chris Scott]

Hi Jenni
That transcription for 1901 was on ancestry.co.uk
It also didn't help that his place of birth was transcribed as Lako instead of Soho!!

[Lechmere]

I forgot about the post office/trade directory entries. With them that makes it about 90 times he used Lechmere and 1 time Cross, and the occasion when he was named as Cross the entry would have been made by his step father - the man who was not old enough to be his father, Thomas Cross.

The Essex Street School shows that he moved to Doveton Street on or just before 12th June. There are also entries for Betts Street school (just off Cable Street) where his children went to school before he moved to Doveton Street.

Oh I forgot he also used the name Cross when he reported to a police station after slipping past Mizen and after Paul fingered him in his press interview.
Oh and it seems he avoided giving his address at the inquest as well.
But there is nothing supicious to report.
All's well!

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Lechmere,

but we dont have the full inquest transcript to be sure if he did or didnt give his address????????

that was a question

[Monty]

Jenn,

For him to have appeared at court he must have been summond, which would have been served at his address. Therefore his address would have been known prior to the inquest

A fact which has been overlooked.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty!

I quote you from your post 13 (unlucky number!):

"Is it proven that He himself used the name? No. However is it proven that he never used the name Cross? Yes, that has been proven. It is in the Inquest records."

This is what you wrote in your former post:

"Hardly an act of guilt, using a name you had used before ..."

Ergo, you then claimed that he HAD used the name Cross BEFORE - which you now concede is NOT a proven point.

This is why I brought up your former demands on me about "facts" - you presented something that is not a fact as if it was. And you concluded from it.

And still, just as I have said before, I would much prefer to discuss the case as such, and not our mutual shortcomings in the presenting business. It is a very good proposition that he may have called himself Cross when under the care of Thomas Cross, at any rate.

Now, can we please put these hostilities aside, and try to make sense of the case at hand in a better atmosphere?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jenni Shelden:

"Also not to nit pick Fisherman, but in the cases of all the census bar 1911 and the baptisms, the official would have filled in the book and no one woulf have signed anything - the names would have been given verbally."

Aha. Then arguably the head of the family could have supplied all the names. And thatīs not nit picking, itīs very much factual information of relevance! So thanks!

"I have to say I agree with the notion that using the name Cross was not using a false name."

It was a name that it is easy to understand if he felt he had a claim to it. Technically, though, it was not his true name. And names that are not true are false. That is why I use this term, not because I donīt see what relevance he could have ascribed to it.

"I also agree that it was odd if it was not the name he used for such important events as naming his children."

Very odd indeed.

" I have come across odder things in my time studying my own genealogy"

Iīm sure others will have too, Jenni. Does not mean that it becomes LESS odd, does it?

"On the balance of probabilities I think it is fair to say that

1) Cross was a name associated with this person in his childhood."

Absolutely. We have a decade, just about, of association with that name.

"2) in using this name he wasnt going to any great effort to hide his identity, ie he could have come up with something not associated with him like Michael Hilton or Richard Moon."

Yes. Which is why, if he was the killer, we need to see if there is an explanation at hand for the choice he made. And that would be a wish to hide from others what the police (almost) knew - his true identity.

"3) His correct address was given, and so was his correct place of work. These two factors would go someway to mitigating the fact that he gave his name as Cross when he seemingly used Lechmere for the purpose of official documentation throughout his life."

From most angles, it would go a long way to mitigate it, yes. But there is the distinct possibility that he did not wish for people in his near proximity to find out about his connection to the killing of Nichols.
Ponder, if you will, the possibility that he had been pointed out as responsible for, say, an act of lewd behaviour, but that nothing of value could be used to accuse him legally, and that he therefore walked free. Make the assumption that this was something his wife knew about - then how would she react to finding out that her husband had been the man who - singlehandedly - "found" Nichols?
This is just one suggestion - and just conjecture. But the implications should be clear enough.
But there is no need for such conjecture, I think. It may well be that he simply realized that there were advantages in not having his close ones knowing that he had been involved.

"Finally if he really was JtR, why didnt he just vanish and send Paul off to get the police? He wouldnt have had to give any details about anything, would he?"

True. But it would mean that he would spend the rest of his days in anticipation of hearing the words "Officer, stop that man!" behind him. If he had left the body the way you suggest, he would have turned himself into the prime suspect. If he did it the way I think, that never happened. Itīs a far better outcome any way we look upon it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"For him to have appeared at court he must have been summond, which would have been served at his address. Therefore his address would have been known prior to the inquest

A fact which has been overlooked."

There is that f-word again. Just like Lechmere (the poster) pointed out, he may equally have been summoned to the Monday inquest on Sunday evening, in person. And noone, Monty, is saying that his address was NOT known prior to the inquest - it very obvious that it was, since he would have given it to the police when dropping in at the cop shop on Sunday evening.

My own guess - but I donīt think anybody has substantiated it so far - is that there was a witness list (apparently this is what many coroners produce) present, and on it, I feel pretty certain that our man was listed as Charles Cross of 22 Doveton Street. I also think that this may have been the source the Star used to establish his address, something they did as the one and only newspaper.

What is very interesting in this matter is - at least to my mind - that it seems that Lechmere avoided naming his address at the inquest. Avoided, omitted, forgot, whatever - the effect was that the only thing that was generally spread in the papers was that a man called Charles (Or George, even) Cross had witnessed in the case, and that he was a Pickfordīs carman. Would that have his wife realizing that George Cross was her husband? I donīt think so, since she would have been married to Charles Lechmere and not to George Cross.

It is not any established thing that this was how it went down - but it is not a good thing for his overall credibility that the possibility is so very obviously there. And it is not led on by anybody else than himself.

The best,
Fisherman

[John Bennett]

Yes. Which is why, if he was the killer, we need to see if there is an explanation at hand for the choice he made. And that would be a wish to hide from others what the police (almost) knew - his true identity.

Considering that he must have given his address, place of work and how long he had worked there, plus a surname which has everything to do with his past, I canīt see a particularly convincing attempt at hiding his true identity!

JB